Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wikipedia Story

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to History of Wikipedia with the possibility of merging left open. JoshuaZ 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Story

It is a 30-minute one-time show on BBC, nothing notable or worthwhile to be included in the main namespace. We don't and should not have articles about every not-so-special show/coverage on any of the TV stations. Renata 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge I do not think that this would have been made if this article wasn't about Wikipedia although it does contain valuable well sourced information so merge into History of Wikipedia.
Keep Well-sourced article on notable subject, presented by notable presenter, broadcast on major national radio network, interviewing several notable guests, and (as evidenced by sited reference listed on the "pick of the day/week" in several national newspapers' media review sections. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do you mean "cited"? -- Zanimum 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; I agree with the nominator. We don't have articles about all the other one time BBC programs. This is only an article because it's about Wikipedia. SU Linguist 18:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I still agree with my original comments, but merging with History of Wikipedia would be better. SU Linguist 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - well written and referenced, but lacks noteability - I doubt this would've been included on this website if it wasn't about Wikipedia. Merge it into History of Wikipedia. Lra drama 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at least 99% of those are either series or episodes of series, not one offs. -- Zanimum 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I should've been paying more attention. Sorry about that, I've changed my opinion. Lra drama 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have to change my mind again. It would be OK merged in with another article such as History of Wikipedia. I just think it's written well, and only lacks noteability on its own. Lra drama 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If the 'community' insists on deleting TV episodes watched by millions, then this should not have a standalone article. However, is there an appropriate article to which it could be merged? The content is relevant to the History of Wikipedia. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why is this anything special, compared to any other program that the BBC has aired. -- Zanimum 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of "significant coverage from independent sources". Did any non-BBC sources talk about this? Corpx 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that Google News has picked up, and so far as I can tell, not elsewhere. The only thing I can find is "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story", a film documentary in production. -- Zanimum 19:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Would be better if merged to the History of Wikipedia. Nbala13 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clive Anderson — it is too insignificant to survive for long in the History of Wikipedia page. Ironically, the radio show itself predicts this outcome in its final minute.--75.37.12.168 19:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive doesn't regularly do one-off programs? -- Zanimum 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not assert notability. And there's not much information in here to merge, unless you just wanted to add the fact that a show was done. I ^{(said) (did)} 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Wikipedia and redirect. This may not pick up enough coverage outside of BBC and here to really be a standalone article, but it sounds like a pretty solid program that should be mentioned somewhere. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Tony Fox, our rationales are virtually identical. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per just about everybody. Delete as very weak second choice. This is not a vote to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an experiment in irony. -Multivitamin 22:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't ironic. We delete article about Wikipedia all the time. Like clockwork. -- Zanimum 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable or significant enough for it's own article, but the information coulduse a merge to History of Wikipedia]] Calgary 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Maybe Wikinewsfy?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia Story is already referred to in this week's issue of Signpost here.--75.37.12.168 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That, and this isn't newsworthy enough for Wikinews. There was nothing controversial about it, and we apply the same level of notability to our news stories -- would we have covered it, if it weren't about Wikipedia? Wikinews is not a dumping ground. -- Zanimum 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Clive Anderson. Tim Vickers 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete No notability of its own whatsoever. Wikipedia does not create notability. Circeus 03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - Wikipedia pops up in the media all the time, and a 1 time BBC show is not notable. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with content already mentioned in the "Television" section of the Clive Anderson article. →Lwalt^♦ talk 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Well sourced article. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 07:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - several people commenting on this, including the nominator, have said or implied that this is a TV programme, when it is in fact a radio program. Since this demonstrates that they have not read the article carefully enough, does this mean that their comments should be interpreted with caution? Carcharoth 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regardless of whether it needs to be mentioned in an article, this has already been mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio. Carcharoth 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect In of itself, a radio show episode on a website isn't notable. We wouldn't create an article just because some radio station ran a 30 minute radio show on Microsoft for example, even if they interviewed Bill Gates for it (at least not unless there was a good basis for notability). It might have valuable information for History of Wikipedia though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for Clive Anderson#_ref-0 or History of Wikipedia. Perfect for Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio#2007 (already there), maybe notable enough for Criticism of Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2007-07-25t10:29z
Delete, not notable enough. SYSS Mouse 13:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable BBC program about us. One 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as has been said many times before, what makes "us" of more note than anyone else? It's an encyclopedia named "Wikipedia", not an encyclopedia about Wikipedia. -- Zanimum 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as has also been said many times before, it's relevant because we are Wikipedia. It's of more note on Wikipedia because we are on Wikipedia, not Brittanica or something like that. One 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arent we supposed to be neutral? Corpx 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're supposed to be neutral, then I realize that this is a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but let's delete Wikipedia and every article pertaining to it while we're at it, then. One 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia clearly passes the notability guideline. There are plenty of independent sources that give significant coverage to Wikipedia. Corpx 01:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] isn't an independent source? One 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like the producer's site. Corpx 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, no brainer given many progs get articles, SqueakBox 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the programs have reliable sources that give them significant coverage Corpx 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly acceptable, notable, researched and sourced article.--Smerus 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there significant coverage from independent sources to establish notability? Corpx 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this article wouldn't be here if it were about a different website. A one or two sentence note in History of Wikipedia would suffice. Zvika 19:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge without redirect~~ one half hour program maybe deserves mention in the History of Wikipedia article, but nothing more. per WP:ASR. I am sure we don't document every half hour program Mr. Anderson does, so why should we do this one? --rogerd 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wholly unnotable one off radio program, stop this pathetic navel gazing. How is this event more significant or notable than the hulks of shit we delete under "Do no harm" BLP? - hahnchen 22:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No BLP problems here, SqueakBox 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the point. That it's entirely non notable is. - hahnch e n 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge EAi 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable program that adds nothing to the History of Wikipedia Gavinclarke 10:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, the details of it should be kept, possibly mentioned on the pages of those who took part. Darrenhusted 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - and maybe move into the Wikipedia namespace. Not really sure it could be a redirect, but as a Wikipedia namespace article that may satisfy some people. --SunStar Net ^talk 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A no-brainer: a one-off BBC Radio 4 documentary, like dozens that are broadcast every year, with nothing at all making this stand out other than obvious interest it's generating here. I'm not seeing the slightest sign that it's been noted or had an impact OUTSIDE of Wikipedia -- and no, program listings don't count. "Oh! Oh! They're talking about US!" isn't the slightest justification for an article that's absent any other reason for existence. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inescapably non-notable - a bit of gratuitous navel-gazing. Slac speak up! 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important to people who would be using wikipedia Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a single documentary and has few, if any, secondary sources unrelated to the creator/broadcaster. --- RockMFR 15:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — important for Wikipedia. Slade (The Joker) 19:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not supposed to be "about" Wikipedia. It is supposed to be about general knowledge, which this project is a very small part of. See WP:ASR --rogerd 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I listen to loads of these potted histories on Radio 4 every year, I'm guessing this one has an article because it's incased within its subject. Gareth E Kegg 00:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the History of Wikipedia. --Chris ^g 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 30 minute non-notable radio one-off. The only reason it's on here is because it was about Wikipedia. If it was about Google, the article wouldn't have even been created. At the most, this needs to be merge into the History of Wikipedia. Great # 8 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Wikipedia, I guess. A non-notable one-time program. Maxa megalon 2000 20:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, if it was about a computer, it wouldn't be here. WP:ASR -Flubeca^Talk 02:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.